| Author | Message | ||
     Mayor McCheese Supporter Username: Mayor_mccheese Post Number: 1157 Registered: 7-2004  |
You ask others to move because they are smoking instead of getting up yourself??? That is just rude. People wonder why smokers are "evil" and will blow smoke in their face; that is why. Sometimes people deserve what they get. This is all about rights. It has nothing to do with the health of the workers. Why don't you ask the workers if they believe they work in a hazardous condition? I quit smoking, but continue to work in a restaurant. No one ever bothered to ask me or anyone who works with me, or anyone who even works in this industry what they felt about the law. People who have nothing to do with the bar/restaurant business should have nothing to do with regulating it. CFA, that was not harsh at all. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1584 Registered: 10-2003 |
Cheese, get a grip. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 638 Registered: 7-2005  |
None of you should go to a college or universtiy class then...because a lot of the students reek of cigarette smoke...and there is usually no where for anybody to move. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1585 Registered: 10-2003 |
Interesting, Glock. I go to a unversity and haven't been polled for this study you cite. Where are you getting your statistics from? Do you have a number or percentage that represents "a lot"? I found a study from Ohio State U wherein 68,000 undergraduates from 133 US colleges were surveyed. Of them, 20 percent smoke at least ten times a month, 8 percent daily (from the Spring 2004 Core Alcohol and Drug Survey). Eight percent is not "a lot". One might even say it is a miniscule minority. However, if one of those eight percent sits next to me in class, I will ask them to sit elsewhere, just like I would if they had b.o. or were wearing too much perfume. If I sit next to someone who smells, I will choose another seat. There is always someplace to move. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7264 Registered: 5-2001 |
Mayor: It is interesting that you, who work in a restaurant, are so opposed to the no smoking law when you and your co-workers are among those whom the new law will most benefit. The cleaner air you will now be smoking on the job could save your life and the lives of your co-workers. The majority of us previously had the option not to patronize a restaurant which welcomed smokers since there were sufficient non-smoking restaurants to choose from. It is much more difficult, when your livelihood depends on it, to choose to quit a job because of your exposure to second hand smoke. | ||
| Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 639 Registered: 7-2005 |
you hide the truth by not adding the two and classifying them all as 'smokers' Nearly 30% are smokers. | ||
| eb1154 Citizen Username: Eb1154 Post Number: 484 Registered: 5-2001 |
I find it funny that no one has mentioned the effect on the economy if all of us smokers quit. Do you people realize how much money the government collects from a pack of smokes? Or how many people the tobacco industry employees? You talk about health insurance costs and how much would be saved if we didn't have the need to to deal with lung cancer and other related illnesses. You fail to mention how many people will be out of work due to the decreased need for this medical treatment. Therefore creating a lot more people unemployeed and collecting unemployment. All I'm saying is be careful of what you wish for. Yes, I will take the finacial hit also, but it won't be so bad because I will be saving the money I was spending on cigarettes. Don't bitch when the state and feds say we need to raise the taxes because we have a shortfall due to a decrease in tobacco taxes. I also think that we should ban drinking in public places. I hate having to deal with the drunk when I am eating out. And yes, they do pose a heath risk to me when they get behind the wheel of a car. Yeah there are laws against driving while under the influence but how many people do it anyway? How many fights are started by someone who has been drinking? If someone doesn't like a place that allows smoking they don't have to go there. If there was such a major desire for non smoking establishments then why didn't these places pop up all over the place? OK, I'm done bitching now. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1587 Registered: 10-2003 |
No Glock. Of the 20 percent who smoke at least 10 times per month, 8 percent of THEM smoke daily. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Check for yourself - I cited the study. If there was such a major desire for non smoking establishments then why didn't these places pop up all over the place? eb, they did. We are the 11th state to go smoke-free. As a smoker, you likely haven't patroned the local non-smoking establishments. | ||
| eb1154 Citizen Username: Eb1154 Post Number: 485 Registered: 5-2001 |
las, if there were all of these smoke free places already out there then why the need to ban smoking in all places? You are right, I probably didn't go to any of the non smoking establishments, and if I did, I observed the desire of other patrons not to have me smoke. So should those people who don't smoke and go to a place that allowed smoking observe my desire to smoke. It was simple, if you didn't like smoke then you didn't go where smoking was allowed. If you really liked the place that allowed smoking then you would put up with the smoke. Just as if I liked a place that didn't allow smoking I would hve to refrain from smoking. If you are talking about a place of work or some place where you "needed" to be then that is differnt. I wouldn't object to that part of the law but if it was a place of entertainment then you already had the choice not to go there. | ||
| CFA Citizen Username: Cfa Post Number: 1622 Registered: 5-2001  |
I think las needs a drink. That's the problem with this board, everyone gets in everyone else's business. My comment was to JTTA and no one else, but busy bodies need to chime in. Also, las....If I sat next to you and you asked me to move, I'd tell you to kiss my Italian •••. Seems to me you're an over opinionated whiner. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1589 Registered: 10-2003 |
For your information, CFA, I've already had a drink.  You posted on a public forum which makes your statement public. If you wanted to ridicule JTA in private you could have done so without subjecting yourself to anyone else's busy-bodiness. eb, I don't know the impetus behind the legislation. I do like it, and have no reason to fight it. Maybe I'lll see you out and about sometime, seeing as we'll likely frequent the same establishments. | ||
| CFA Citizen Username: Cfa Post Number: 1623 Registered: 5-2001 |
In honor of Strawberry.......boring! | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1590 Registered: 10-2003 |
Paraphrasing...brilliant! | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2357 Registered: 5-2001 |
las, you're right; they're wrong (but I like eb1154 and hope I can buy him a drink in a smoke-free bar one of these days). Now go study, write, whatever! Signed, the queen of procrastination. | ||
| Wendy Supporter Username: Wendy Post Number: 2358 Registered: 5-2001 |
Oh and I like Mayor too even though or perhaps because he's sounding like a true libertarian. | ||
| Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7266 Registered: 5-2001 |
Eric: I'm one of those people who prefers (make that insists) on eating in as close to a smoke-free establishment as possible whenever I go out to eat. One of the things that I have noticed is that there was almost always a significant wait for seating in the non-smoking section of the more popular restaurants in our area while tables went unused in the smoking area. From this unscientific observation I would conclude that restaurants in our area might actually do better economically now that smoke-free restaurants have become a requirement. You site all the people who may lose their jobs in agriculture, manufacturing, transport, wholesale/retail merchanidising, advertising, etc. if tobacco products were to be outlawed but nobody is outlawing them yet. If and when such legal action were to take place, just think of all the additional food which could be grown in fields now devoted to tobacco cultivation, of all the improvements in medical care and medical research which could be made when and if medical personnel could be freed from having to devote so much time to treatment of tobacco induced illnesses, all the new jobs which could be created in endeavors we can only begin to imagine... I doubt we will see tobacco use outlawed in either of our lifetimes but I am not in the least concerned about the impact on our economy if such a ban were to be instituted and prove to be successful in eliminating smoking of tobacco products. | ||
| jamie Citizen Username: Jamie Post Number: 486 Registered: 6-2001  |
The simple fact that in the U.S., about 440,000 people die a tobacco-related death every year, should be enough of a solid reason for the banning this substance in public spaces. It's a known carcinogen, and people are sadly addicted and spending their money for what? $7 a day for what? Seriously - as I've asked in the past - please list all of the benefits of smoking. Cigarette smoking is the number one cause of preventable death in the U.S. End of story. And yes - we should eventually ban cigarettes, that won't happen anytime soon - but this is a great first step. Big tobacco loves addicts and money - that's their whole business. And I'm really happy when I hear people quitting the habit - like mayor and bets and mem. | ||
| Soda Supporter Username: Soda Post Number: 3744 Registered: 5-2001  |
eb1154: "the effect on the economy if all of us smokers quit"??? Surely you jest... Let's see: What's the cost of lung cancer, stroke, environmentally-triggered asthma (etc) on the economy? What's the cost to the families who must suffer as loved ones sicken and die, then bury their (preventable) dead? But hey, why argue with somebody who's lining up to become a statistic??? Smoke 'em if you got 'em, eb. -s. BTW: Jamie beat me to the punch, but I don't mind. | ||
| Soda Supporter Username: Soda Post Number: 3745 Registered: 5-2001 |
OK, eb: I'll let the CDC (partly) answer your incredibly wrong-headed question:  | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1591 Registered: 10-2003 |
Soda, do I need to tell you I'd prefer my future husband to be a non-smoker, or is that assumed? ;-) | ||
| Soda Supporter Username: Soda Post Number: 3746 Registered: 5-2001 |
...Oh, and eb: since you don't strike me as one who's easily impressed by mere statistics, I'll over-simplify it for you with a couple of pie-charts:  I hope that your family doesn't know how selfish you are. But they probably will, someday... Please quit. -s. BTW: I'm taken, las. Your gain... | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1592 Registered: 10-2003 |
I think I knew that, Soda. Weren't you looking for someone for me, however? | ||
| Soda Supporter Username: Soda Post Number: 3749 Registered: 5-2001 |
High & Low, las: High Income, Low Maintenance (my polar opposite  )... -s. | ||
| las Citizen Username: Las Post Number: 1594 Registered: 10-2003 |
Soda, that's nice. That description makes my cats purr. (me, too!) | ||
| eb1154 Citizen Username: Eb1154 Post Number: 486 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'm not going to argue, the law was passed, I think it SUCKS but I will deal with it. I just hope when the government takes away something you enjoy you don't scream that it is unfair. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4697 Registered: 1-2004  |
CFA True I do have brain damage; but why should I have to allow a tech that reeks of smoke to draw blood from me? Or take X-Rays? Or anything else a tech might do? And why should I have to put up with a nurse or Resident who reeks of smoke? I don't have to. There are plenty of other techs and nurses in the hospital. So it's not as if I'm not getting the medical treatment I might need. It just means I don't want people who reek of smoke treating me. That's my choice, and my right. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4698 Registered: 1-2004 |
Kibble- Unfortunately for people like our parents, the tobacco companies did everything they could to hide the dangers of smoking. It wasn't until the past 8-10 years or so they admitted that yes, nicotine is a drug and it can become an addiction for some people. It's not saying everyone who smokes is addicted. The same as not everyone who drinks alcohol is an alcoholic. In the field of addiction, you cannot be a licensed CADC if you smoke. If it's good enough for the addition field, it should be good enough for all of the medical field. I have trouble breathing as it is. Having to breath the smell in while being examined make me want to barf. None of my regular doctors smoke. As far as I know, none of the staff in any of their offices smoke. Or at least I don't smell it on them. But more then once when I've gone for tests or have been a patient in the hospital I've had to ask for a different tech or nurse. I don't understand how that can be considered discrimination. I use to go to a Dr who was hard of hearing. I loved him and considered him a great Dr. There came a point my sister needed the same kind of Dr. I sent her to him; not thinking to mention he was hard of hearing. She wasn't very happy when she got home and choose to go to a different Dr. I think it comes down to choice and who one feels comfortable with. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4699 Registered: 1-2004 |
Mc Cheesy- Did you see the article in today's Ledger? Several employees of establishments that use to allow smoking were quoted saying how happy they are they no longer have to smell like smoke. I'm old enough to remember when smoking was allowed in college classrooms. I made it a point to sit as far away from the students who smoked as possible. I find it annoying to be sitting somewhere minding my own business when someone sits down near me and lights up a cigarette; especially at the pool! Why should I, who was already sitting there, have to move? Why don't I have the right to ask the other person to please not smoke? I am in agreement with those upset the ban doesn't include casinos. But I have a feeling as soon as this ban has been in effect a few months, the casinos will be next. That's the biggest gripe amongst bar owners. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13679 Registered: 1-2003  |
I do think the 25 foot rule may be too harsh. How come we didn't hear of this clause until right before the law went into effect? eb1154, by your reasoning, the rebuilding of the world trade center is good for the economy. But I don't think that anything that reliably causes disease, suffering and death is good for the economy. And even if it is, it's still not good. | ||
| John Caffrey Citizen Username: Jerseyjack Post Number: 184 Registered: 11-2005 |
As I post this, the smoking ban has been in effect for more than 24 hours. Are there statistics yet for the number of people who have died as a result of frustration over the smoking ban? | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4700 Registered: 1-2004 |
eb111 I don't think it's going to be as bad as you think. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4701 Registered: 1-2004 |
CFA- One of the problems many of the non smokers I know have with some smokers is the attitude some have that they have more of a right to stink up the area around us and force us to breath secondhand smoke, then non smokers have to breath air that doesn't reek of smoke. I think it's amazing the number of people I seeing smoking in their cars who hold the cigarette out the window and blow the smoke out the window. One of my friends does this. When I asked about this I was told they didn't want to stink up their car. Ah, okay. Whatever I told them. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4703 Registered: 1-2004 |
Las- Thank you for defending me. When I first saw CFA's post I thought to myself her post could be considered a personal attack; but decided not to make a big deal about it. Now that you've been attacked... But you what I've been told? When someone has to attack the person and not the issues to get their point across, well you know what I mean? Something else I've been told. I've been told smokers who can't quit are considered addicted. The sad thing is many people don't realize, or don't want to admit nicotine is a drug and unfortunately a good number of people become addicted to nicotine. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4704 Registered: 1-2004 |
OMG!!! SODA What great posts! | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4705 Registered: 1-2004 |
Las- I found not one, but TWO non-smokers for you! Garry said maybe another time when it's not so crowded and loud. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4706 Registered: 1-2004 |
Tom- I think the 25 foot rule is GREAT! BUT, with one change. Allow the businesses to build their patios, decks, whatever for those who want to smoke. But don't have it by an entrance non smokers need to use. I wish Saint Barnabas would do something to keep the staff from smoking right outside the main entrance. | ||
| Just The Aunt Supporter Username: Auntof13 Post Number: 4707 Registered: 1-2004 |
John- Even better. What about the number of smokers who have strangled non-smokers happy about the new law?  | ||
| TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1054 Registered: 6-2001 |
Noglider, The reason you hadn't heard, or read, of the 25 foot rule is that the regulation wasn't published until April 11, or perhaps the twelfth. Its not part of the legislation. It one of the Commissioner's regulations. Fun stuff, eh! I haven't been able to review the regulations yet, but if the Star Ledger's summary on April 13, was accurate, I don't think the regulations will stand. Think about it. Some guy who just had a baby, picks up a Cohiba at the liquor store on Highland Place. He proudly struts toward Maplewood Avenue as he unwraps the cigar (of course placing the wrapper in his pocket) and brings a match to the tip of his cigar as he turns the corner at the nail salon. BUSTED! Smoking within 25 feet of a place wherein smoking is prohibited. The only place in downtown Maplewood where people may be permitted to smoke will be on the sidewalk in front of the Post Office building. Assuming, of course, that federal regs don't prohibit smoking. (There is also probably a small area in front of King's toward the southerly edge of the building, as long as the smokers stay 25 feet away from the bank. The regulation strikes me as even more absurd if you think about places like the Newark business district. How many places can you think of which are not within 25 feet of a place where smoking is now prohibited? While I accept the legislature's ban as expressive of the will of the people (although I do think it was a poor use of their time and effort) the Commissioner's ban smacks of overreaching. This is going to interesting. Of course, all of the above assumes the the Star Ledger accurately reported the substance of the regulations. And, as always, that's just one man's opinion. TomR | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 13684 Registered: 1-2003 |
Who gets busted, the smoker or the owner of the restaurant near which he smokes? | ||
| Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 9231 Registered: 4-1997  |
Smoking Clubs are exempt. Wonder who will be the first to cash in? |
